Omer Taspinar / Sabah
Washington's multi-dimensional polarization over Turkey continues. Justice and Development Party delegation witnessed the polarization in Washington during its recent contacts. There are two fronts in Washington; One of them is the clique of the opinion of "Turkey becomes Islamist", which recently joined by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. This circle's voice began to sound louder after the Gaza crisis and (UN Security Council) voting against Iran. Of cource we should pay attention to the views of important analysts as Friedman. But the most important side of this clique is the American Congress. Many Congressmen and Senators whose knowledge base on hearsay and who focuses on domestic policies are considering that Turkey should be accounted for what it did. Congressmen who are close to Israeli lobbies are the ones who follows anti-Turkish policies the most. Congressmen who call to pass Armenian resolution, to cancel cooperation in PKK issue and to cancel selling Turkey arms are all in the clique of Israeli lobby or neo-cons.
The second clique consists of American left wing, columnists who have academician identity and think-tank organizations which are able to think objectively. These cirles are making balanced analysis on Turkey. Instead of making simple and baseless analysis like "Turkey becomes Islamist", they ask "What are we doing wrong?". They criticise Washington's Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan policies and therefore they state that Turkey is inclined to follow an independent diplomacy as United States do so many mistakes. These circles approach Turkey and Brazil as the raising powers of the new world. They see a different image in Turkey. For example, one of the most important columnists in Financial Times, Philip Stephens says, "The Western World should understand Turkey's importance. Western World should protect Turkey which has such self confidence and strategic prestige in the Middle East".
As there are two separate camps in Washington, the most important question is what is the position of Obama administration. The shortest answer for the question is; "Somewhere between the two." Currently there is an interesting paradox in Obama administration. The source of the dilemma is the way that the system how American politics work. The basis is the tough balance between the Congress and the administration. As the reactions against Turkey find support in the Congress, Obama administration finds itself a position to balance the trend. The administration is afraid that Congress may overreact and ruin the relations with Turkey. How would the Congress overreact? For example by passing "Armenian genocide" resolution. Or it may suspend selling Turkey arms.
Therefore, Obama administration seeks to balance the Congress. But how will it do that? In my opinion, it will struggle to calm down the Congress as it will follow a "transactional partnership" relations with Turkey instead of "strategical partnership". Two countries will negotiate seeking to protect their own interests and they will seek a balance of compensations.
Turkey should be strong when it sits at the negotiation table with Washington. Therefore it should make steps to strengthen its weakest points. What do these mean? Very simple; We should come to a point that we will not any more need American assistance in PKK and Armenian issues. Therefore, Turkey would be seen as a real regional power by Washington. Are we ready for such realistic democratization?
Historyoftruth.com
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
